Will DoD's 2014 sequestration plan jolt Congress into action?

By
Jack Moore

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel put the ball in Congress' court this week when he released details
of a defense budget "plan B" — how the Pentagon would manage billions of
dollars in cuts if sequestration continues into fiscal 2014 and beyond.

If sequestration continues next year, the Defense Department faces $52 billion in
cuts next fiscal year. That could mean targeted reductions-in-force (RIFs) and
severe cuts to operations and maintenance accounts, Chuck Hagel wrote in a July 10 letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But, there's not yet anything close to a winning strategy in Congress to avert or
replace the automatic budget cuts.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the committee, which he is a member of, is a good
place to start bipartisan negotiations.

But Kaine said the eight-page letter lacked the specificity that might have
jumpstarted negotiations.

"I've got to admit, I was looking for more specifics that would shake people out
of their slump," he said. "There are some bits of data, there are some bits of
evidence in the letter that we can use. But I just need to go to work with my
committee colleagues and try to convince them 'Let's let Armed Services be the
ice-breaker that will cut through the ice on this thing and create a new dynamic."

Kaine said he's hopeful he and his colleagues can play a constructive role. But in
many cases, Congress has actually made it harder for DoD to enact cost-saving
measures.

"Part of the solution to the current budgetary impasse will require that Congress
become a full partner in ending business-as-usual practices — in areas such
as infrastructure, benefits and procurement — that would otherwise require
further cuts to readiness, modernization and combat power," Hagel wrote in the
letter.

For example, the president's fiscal 2014 budget
request called for slowly trimming back military pay raises and raising
military retiree health premiums, as well as a further round of base closures and
the cancellation of "lower-priority" weapons systems, Hagel pointed out. Congress,
however, has balked at all of those suggestions.

Is strategy driving DoD budget decisions?

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he
was unimpressed by Hagel's letter.

"I would much prefer the secretary of Defense to be coming over here pounding on
the desk and saying, 'Wait a minute. It's time for us to go back and start looking
at our strategy and saying what dollars it's going to take to meet that strategy
and, then, Congress, you've got to come up with these dollars,' (rather) than
coming in here and saying, 'Here's all the cuts to national defense,'" Forbes
said.

Forbes said, overall, he wants the DoD budget to be driven by a clear strategy.
He and Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), his colleague on the House committee, have
proposed what he calls a "fair
share" defense strategy.

Currently, each of the military services — the Army, Air Force and Navy
— receive about equal budget allocations. The Forbes and Larsen proposal
would instead assign funding based on defense priorities.

"What we're trying to to do is get a strategy," Forbes said. "And when you just
arbitrarily pick one-third, one-third, one-third, that's not a strategy —
that's budget driving the strategy, instead of the strategy driving the budget."